25 July 2014

This submission has been prepared by:

Mark QuinlanPolicy TeamUKIPMoss House15-16 Brooks MewsLondon W1K 4DS

Tel: 020 7408 1300E-mail: mark.quinlan@ukip.org

Memorandum by UKIP INTRODUCTION

UKIP welcomes the opportunity to respond to the second consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products.

SUMMARY UKIP is recommending:

That Her Majestys Government does not proceed with its plan to implement plain packaging of cigarettes, as there is no empirical evidence in the public domain that suggests that doing so would positively impact public health outcomes. This measure is not evidence-based and for that reason alone, will fail.

Added to which, the obvious consequences, legal challenges and costs have not been considered by Her Majestys Government.

UKIP opposes Her Majestys Governments intention to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products, as it infringes the principle of personal choice. Not that the government should need reminding, thats how free societies work. Free people make free choices.

RESPONSES IN FULL

1.It is an undeniably true that tobacco products carry risks to health and that the highly addictive nature of nicotine is a major obstacle to reducing smoking prevalence. Although UK smoking rates have halved since the main health risks were first identified and reported in the 1950s, approximately ten million people in the UK smoke just over one in five of the adult population.[footnoteRef:1] UKIP fully supports measures, such as educational programmes, which help to prevent children from taking up smoking. [1: Action on Smoking and Health http://ash.org.uk/information/facts-and-stats/fact-sheets]

2.It should be noted that the public health community and its quangocracy are unanimous in the belief that evidence supporting the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products is conclusive. Indeed, the Association of Directors of Public Health in their submission to this consultation have stated: ADPH strongly believes that there is extensive evidence to support the case for immediate action by Government on standardised packaging for tobacco products[footnoteRef:2] On 3 April 2014, shadow health secretary Luciana Berger stated: There is an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of standardised packaging and there can be no excuse for further delay.[footnoteRef:3] [2: http://www.adph.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ADPH-submission-to-Chantler-Review-on-Standardised-Packaging-of-Tobacco.pdf] [3: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/81576858315/reponse-to-government-statement-on-the-standardised]

3.The Department of Health has stated that it requires strong and convincing evidence showing the health benefits[footnoteRef:4] of plain packaging, principally that plain packaging would improve public health by reducing the use of tobacco[footnoteRef:5] and in particular deter young people from starting to smoke.[footnoteRef:6] The Department has repeatedly stated that no such evidence exists, and the Department of Health-commissioned Stirling Review of the evidence for plain packaging established exactly this point. [4: Andy Burnham. Letter to Tessa Jowell, 9 November 2009 http://www.tessajowell.net/uploads/22c61588-4799-bcf4-f1f7-c20ab4661d68.pdf] [5: Department of Health, Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products, 16 April 2012 (the Consultation Document), paragraph 1.1: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products] [6: Department of Health, Impact Assessment number 3080, Standardised packaging for tobacco products, 5March 2012 (the Impact Assessment), paragraph 19: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products]

4.However, to describe the current evidence base supporting the case for plain packaging as modest, would be an understatement. Sir Cyril Chantlers April 2014 review examined the same theoretical studies and surveys that were already in the public domain, yet conveniently arrived at a different conclusion to the governments own 2013 findings. And let us be clear, Sir Cyrils review produced no new evidence supporting the theory that the plain packaging of tobacco works.[footnoteRef:7] [7: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035-TSO-2901853-Chantler-Review-ACCESSIBLE.PDF]

5.The carefully qualified conclusion of Sir Cyrils report was: there is sufficient evidence derived from independent sources that the introduction of standardised packaging as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures would be very likely over time to contribute to a modest but important reduction in smoking prevalence especially in children and young adults. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

6.By contrast, on 3 April 2014, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health Jane Ellison, MP told the House of Commons: Mr Speaker, Sir Cyrils report makes a compelling case that if standardised packaging were introduced it would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health and that these health benefits would include health benefits for children.[footnoteRef:8] Clearly Sir Cyrils report made no such claim, but by such means, does the truth operate independently from the facts. [8: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chantler-report-on-standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products]

7.However, there is a body of evidence in the public domain which strongly suggests that Sir Cyrils judgement may have been mistaken. On 1 December 2012, Australia became the worlds first country to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products and in consequence, a picture has emerged, radically different to the one being espoused by the public health community.

8.In 2013, sales of cigarettes in Australia rose by 0.3 per cent. A study by the accounting firm KPMG reported a 154 per cent rise in the sale of illicit, branded cigarettes.[footnoteRef:9] Official Australian government figures also show that the number of seizures of illicit tobacco rose by 60 per cent between 2011/12 and 2012/13, with 183 tonnes of tobacco and 200 million cigarettes intercepted.[footnoteRef:10] [9: http://www.ecta.org/IMG/pdf/kpmg_report_on_illicit_trade_australia_4_nov_2013.pdf] [10: Australian Government (2013) Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2012-13]

9.This data demonstrates that plain packaging has not had a positive effect on public health and if anything, has distorted the cigarette market, leading to unintended outcomes, such as smokers buying more cigarettes from the lowest market segment and, industry data suggests, pushing up sales and frustrating health policies.[footnoteRef:11] [11: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/plain-wrong-here-are-the-facts-cheap-smokes-are-on-the-rise-since-plain-packaging/story-fn59nokw-1226958089150?nk=363816a835ccf3998fb27cbc5ad55ed5]

10.KPMGs study Illicit Tobacco in Australia (2013) indicates there has been a growth in the consumption of illicit tobacco in Australia. As a proportion of total consumption, this represents an increase from 11.8% in 2012 to 13.3%.[footnoteRef:12] In consequence, the Australian Government now has to ponder the wider implications of its decision, given the increase in the illicit tobacco market and A$1billion in lost taxes. [12: https://www.imperial-tobacco.com/assets/files/cms/KPMG_FY2013_Illicit_Trade_Report___FINAL___11_April_2014.pdf]

11.Sir Cyril stated in his review: I am not convinced by the tobacco industrys argument that standardised packaging would increase the illicit market, especially in counterfeit cigarettes.[footnoteRef:13] Unfortunately for Sir Cyril, his review was the victim of poor timing. Had he waited a while, he would have had access to the above evidence from the Australian experiment, which directly contradicts his reports conclusions. [13: P6, Standardised packaging of tobacco: Report of the independent review undertaken by Sir Cyril Chantler.]

12.The illicit trade in tobacco products currently costs the UK up to 3.1 billion a year in lost revenue. Plain packaging will worsen this, creating new opportunities for illicit traders to provide counterfeit products (plain or branded) and other illicit tobacco products. Plain packs will be cheaper and easier to fake than branded ones, and plain packaging will also make it more difficult to identify counterfeit product.[footnoteRef:14] [14: http://www.jti.co.jp/corporate/enterprise/tobacco/import_opinion/packaging_consultation/JTI_response.pdf]

13.The Dept of Healths 2012 Impact Assessment on plain packaging (which was given an amber rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee), stated: For tobacco control policies to be justified, the impact on smoking behaviour and the consequent improvement in health need to be sufficiently large to justify the related costs and A policy to introduce standardised tobacco packaging would need to be justified and be based on expected benefits over and above existing tobacco control measures. The present course of action has conveniently ignored these stipulations.[footnoteRef:15] [15: Amber ratedIAsare considered to be fit for purpose on the condition that changes are made to theIAto respond to the concerns raised in the opinion. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/green-and-amber-rated-impact-assessment-opinions]

14.It should also be noted that internationally, there is significant opposition to plain packaging, due to its undermining of intellectual property rights. Several countries have already filed complaints with the World Trade Organisation against Australia, with a further 35 countries prepared to join the dispute as third parties. These legal challenges remain unresolved. It has been calculated that the British government could be liable for compensation claims estimated to amount to as much as 5 billion.

15.Were plain packaging to be introduced (despite the absence of any empirical evidence supporting such a course of action), a precedent for plain packaging of a whole range of consumer products would have been established, the consequences of which, have not been considered by Her Majestys Government.

16.It should also be noted that the Chantler review was limited to the possible effects of plain packaging on smoking prevalence and that it did not examine, or consider the effects of introducing plain packaging on a whole range of potential problems, such as: intellectual property rights, counterfeiting, smuggling, tax evasion, or trade disputes. Not having considered any of those issues, it should be stated that policy formulation, without reviewing economic and social costs is at best, reckless.

17.In order to maintain proper control over our lives, the ever-watchful nanny state is obsessed with watching and monitoring us.It never sleeps, because it must constantly find new bastions to conquer. Once the plain packaging of tobacco has been implemented, then alcohol, fast food and sugary drinks will receive the same treatment in due course, just as surely as night follows day.

18.The proposed introduction of plain packaging for tobacco may be taken as a further example of the relentless interference of the state in the private lives of the British People. As recently as 1 July 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister stated: For too long new laws have taken away your freedom, interfered in everyday life and made it difficult for businesses to get on[footnoteRef:16]- How soon those who acquire power change their tune. In summary, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this further consultation is merely a fig-leaf, to support a decision that Her Majestys Government has already taken and to that extent, may well be considered a nugatory exercise. [16: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/your-freedom--6]

1